I work as a screenwriter for film & TV. In a former life I was a media specialist & campaign ad writer. Follow me on Twitter @MarkHughesFilms; add me on Google+; and read my question and answers about film, comics, and more on Quora.

'The House I Live In' - The Most Important Drug War Film You'll Ever See

Eugene Jarecki’s new movie The House I Live In should be seen by everybody, because it’s the most important film about the drug war produced to date. Not merely a recitation of the history and statistics demonstrating clearly the pointlessness and tragic results of our nation’s failed war on drugs, it also gives clarity to the ugly truth that what we really have is a war on drug users.

But even that important distinction isn’t what fully elevates this film above the rest. That comes from Jarecki’s exploration of the themes through a very personal and heartbreaking narrative about his own past, and how this personal connection leads him to explore a darker level of drug prohibition that leads to what I’m sure will be a controversial conclusion. Controversial, because of its ultimate truth and implications for our society.

In the film, Jarecki spoke with people on both sides of the war, including narcotics officers, judges, and prison guards (including Mike Carpenter, Chief of Security at Lexington Corrections Center in Oklahoma). What is amazing is the candor with which so many of them spoke regarding the futility of prohibition or at least of their own role in the process. There are likewise plenty of opponents of prohibition in the film, but Jarecki smartly lets most of the “pitch” come from the people working directly within the criminal justice system itself, so that the proponents of drug policy reform are providing background and narratives that highlight the broader truths and implications of the realities depicted by those in law enforcement and the judicial process. On the other side, we see numerous examples of drug users and drug dealers on the streets or at some stage of the justice system, and time after time their economic backgrounds and family life echo a similar refrain.

The point, I think, was to humanize the entire issue on both sides, and show how the system of prohibition is slowly dehumanizing and traumatizing everyone involved in some way or another. Not that the film suggests the police and judges suffer anywhere near what the suspects and convicts suffer — rather, the film is exploring the theme that all of us are made less by a process that devalues other people, and those who are part of that system lose some small part of themselves to it as well. It is something that spreads from all of them outward to all of us, because the connections from one moment and one person to the next are not always obvious, but are very real.

This is where the personal narrative is perhaps most resonant. Nannie Jeter is a black woman who helped raise Eugene Jarecki when he was growing up. She loved him as if he were her own child, and he loved her, too. Jarecki knew her children and played with them, and felt very close to Jeter’s family. What he didn’t realize, however, is that when his own family moved to a new home farther away and asked Nannie Jeter to continue working for them, she had to leave her own children alone for long periods in order to do so. Jeter’s children remained in an urban environment that eventually led to one son’s involvement in drugs, progressing to addiction, and finally to his death. Jeter’s sense of loss and personal guilt are gut wrenching, and must’ve been far more so for Jarecki, who was unaware of these facts until he started making the film.

Jeter escaped poverty and oppression in the south, only to head to the urban north where other forms of institutionalized poverty and racism and classism existed that would force her to make hard, terrible choices no mother should have to make. The segregation — not legal, but structural and in urban planning, housing, and limited employment opportunities — leads to a form of segregation of drug abuse and prohibition, one version for the wealthier people and another for those in inner cities and poor communities. It seems the odds favor tragedy in such circumstances, and Nannie Jeter’s family fell victim to those odds.

And Jarecki himself clearly feels pain, shock, and probably an incredible sense of helplessness over his inability to go back and change the past, to be more aware of what was really happening to her family long ago while she was such a big part of his own life, to help stop the chain of events that would lead to her endless sense of sorrow and her immeasurable loss. This is the film’s subtle and beautifully illustrated point about how this pointless war reaches out unnoticed at times to infect all of our lives, even if we don’t realize it at the time.

I must praise the editing of his film, for piecing together these thematic strands in a way that lets them speak to one another as the film progresses, without getting tangled or confused. They weave in and out, laying a foundation that isn’t obvious at first, but which becomes increasingly clear as the film builds toward a final revelation and statement of theme that — by the time it arrives — feels inevitable and yet caught on the tip of your mind until given voice in such a simple yet profound articulation of truth.

Prohibition has failed to even slow the use of illicit drugs in our society, just as it once failed to prevent consumption of alcohol. Indeed, the laws against drugs have been largely responsible for creation of an underground market that enriches violent gangs and organized crime, just as happened with alcohol. When a policy fails so miserably, exacerbating the problems it was supposedly intended to solve, then rational people will look for new solutions. If instead they increase the failed policy’s application to ever worsening effect, then the film suggests we must ask whether the current outcomes are precisely the desired outcome after all.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

The massive criminalization campaign is a significant social and economic burden on the U.S. Yet, I will guess that not one word will be spoken about this in the current national campaign–by the major parties. Judge Jim Gray, a drug reformer out of Orange County (!) Calif, is the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential nominee.

Indeed, Tim, it’s unthinkable that election after election, neither of the two major parties treat this issue as even worth mentioning (unless it’s to announce more money and other resources being flushed away on the war on drugs). Judge Gray and Gary Johnson (the Libertarian Party presidential candidate) are among the very few candidates trying to highlight this issue on the national stage.

Its not even stopping children to get drugs.Its even make it more easy for children to get drugs, bc a drug like alcohol is controlled and way harder to get for children.Drugs are uncontroled and the only control is the money.

If we can get support for the Johnson/Gray ticket it will force the Republicans and Democrats to defend spending 9 billion dollars more next year(33% increase) on the war on drugs while arguing about which social services to cut funding on.

Thank you to both you and your wife and the good people with whom you are involved for all the work you have done. It is certainly a tragedy. We libertarians have known this for many years and withstood ridicule and hostility because we would not cease talking against the War on Drugs and the people who get caught up in the police state that has developed around the whole of it. Also disturbing is the present President’s decision to attack the medical facilities. Is not it ironic that that at least our three recent Presidents admit to drug use, but see nothing hypocritical about supporting the War on Drugs. This film is definitely a plus and may change some minds.

Thanks to so many who have kept up the opposition to the War on Drugs. It is truly a tragedy. and isn’t it ironic that our last three Presidents are admitted illegal drug users yet feel no compunctions for their hypocrisy. As a libertarian I have known the hostility and ridicule that has been thrown at the libertarians but I am proud that they and a few advocacy groups have stood alone in this effort. For forty years we have argued against the travesty and the growing police state “legitimized” by the increased militarization of the police to fight this War against our own citizens. But forty years ago even the libertarians could not imagine the devastation and far reaching international ramifications of this deathly policy.

Oh, dear, am I on Forbes?! Or on the Nation? Oh, has Forbes turned into Reason?

I look at this sad story of the woman’s son dying of drug addiction, which is exactly like stories right in my neighborhood in New York City, and I have to say, I wonder about the personal responsibility of the people involved, and the powerful drug lobbies and Soros-funded pro-legalization lobby that create an environment where addiction is merely another medical problem and not a spiritual and social problem as well.

And you sure lost me on the Chomskian “structural” problems that somehow come straight out of some college course taught by a Marxist professor. Institutionalized racism and classism? Really, guys? Merely because a black worked as a nanny for a white family? How does that work? What are these “terrible choices”? Er, working at all? And what a “white” perspective, positing that the guilt for the film-maker must be greater than the son’s own mother!

But how about blaming the drug addict himself? Oh, but we are to pervert language and meaning, and start by never using the pejorative term “addict” at all. We are to say “user”.

I find the theorizing about this absolutely appalling, the “progressive” and libertarian collusion and infection of the debate on this is scary. There are two children in my children’s Facebook friendship lists that are dead due to drug overdoses. There are numbers of them serious addicts. This isn’t because of a “war on drugs,” it’s because nobody is saying loudly and clearly that it’s wrong and that schools, parents, and kids themselves all have a responsibility not to let people become addicts and destructive to themselves and society. In fact, the public schools’ drug of choice to keep rowdy populations pacified and manageable is marijuana.

It’s not about poverty. It’s not about structural this or that. It’s about the inability of the entitlement generation and their caregivers to say “no”. Truly.

The War on Drugs needs to be replaced with an all-out War Against Drug Dealers to include: – Death penalty for 2nd & 3rd time offenders, as optional for juries and judges to apply. - Death penalty for 1st time offenders who are in law enforcement, but make it mandatory. NO SECOND CHANCE. - Set stiff fines for drug users based on ability to pay, increase their incarceration period to make it intolerable to be a drug user. - Resort to all the tactics used against terrorist to wipe out the cartel drug leaders everywhere. - Target government officials everywhere who are assisting drug cartel leaders and go for the ones with greater power, and use the same anti-terrorists tactics against these criminals: WIPE THEM OUT! - Give top drug cartel leaders 90 to 180 days to appear in court in their home country or in the U. S. and send special forces after that to kill them and at that point forget about arresting them. JUST KILL THE ANIMALS! - There should be more drug testing of government and private employees, and fire repeat drug offenders from the work-place, but dismiss any fire-fighter, cop or other fist responder on the first proven drug test failure. ZERO TOLERANCE. ===== ELIMINATE THE DEMAND AND ELIMINATE THE SUPPLY ====== - JUST KILL THE DRUG DEALERS AND ITS GOVERNMENT SUPPORTERS